No one lights a lamp and covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 8:16) This saying in the New Testament underscores the public, revealing nature of the Good Father’s mercy through Christ—nothing hidden remains concealed, calling for open proclamation amid Yahweh’s shadowed world.

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart” and brings plagues including death of the firstborn (Exodus 7-12, esp. 11:10). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:27-28). The Elohim of Israel hardens hearts and slays the innocent; the alien Good God reveals enemy-love and mercy without coercion. Judge the fruit.

Church fathers like Tertullian & Epiphanius claimed Marcion 'mutilated' Luke & Paul's letters to fit his theology. The reality was that his Evangelion + Apostolikon preserve an earlier textual tradition. The 'cuts' they accused him of were likely the later orthodox additions that stitched in OT YHWH theology. Marcion didn't hack the Gospel — he safeguarded the pure Pauline message of grace before it was harmonised with the Law. Judge the fruit: mercy over merger.

No one can serve two masters. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 16:13) This teaching in the New Testament draws the unbreakable line between loyalty to the Good Father revealed in Christ and entanglement with the Yahweh's material system of mammon, demanding total allegiance to grace.

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): “You shall have no other gods before me” and commands exclusive worship with threats of punishment (Exodus 20:3-5). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:27-28). The Elohim of Israel demands jealous exclusivity and vengeance; the alien Good God reveals universal love and mercy even for adversaries. Judge the fruit.

🔥🤣

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 23:34). The Elohim of Israel punishes across generations in jealousy; the alien Good God reveals immediate forgiveness and mercy. Judge the fruit.

For there is no good tree that produceth corrupt fruit; nor corrupt tree that produceth good fruit. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:43) This core saying in the New Testament exposes YHWH's flawed character through his Law’s “bad fruit” (violence, curses, contradictions), contrasting sharply with the wholly good Father God revealed in Christ.

Modern Christians freak out at the plain Hebrew of Elohim (plural, a class of divine beings) in the Hebrew Bible, screaming "You don't understand the Bible!" or blaming "bad translations" — all while dodging the actual Hebrew text. The irony is strong. In the Divine Council worldview (Psalm 82; Deut 32:8-9; Heiser's and Biglino's analysis), Elohim aren't a singular "God" in the later monotheistic sense. Elyon (the Most High) presides over a council of sons of God/Elohim — powerful spiritual beings assigned nations, some rebellious (Watchers, etc.). YHWH is one of them, allotted Israel. This isn't fringe — it's the ancient Near Eastern context, backed by the text, DSS, and Enochian material. Ignoring it flattens the Bible into modern assumptions and leaves you blind to what's coming: the powers of darkness, delegitimised rulers, and cosmic realignment. Grasping the Council view unlocks the Bible as it is — and the story still unfolding. It's time to read the Hebrew on its own terms

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): Commands the slaughter of the Amalekites, “kill both man and woman, child and infant” (1 Samuel 15:3). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:27-28). The Elohim of Israel demands genocidal violence; the alien Good God reveals perfect love and mercy for all. Judge the fruit.

YHWH wasn't a disembodied "spirit" — he was a physical, non-human Elohim. The Hebrew shows Elohim (incl. YHWH) as flesh-and-blood beings from a group of powerful entities — not omnipotent supernatural God. They walked, ate, smelled sacrifices, flew in vehicles (ruach/kavod), had offspring, and interacted physically with humans. The Hebrew Bible portrays YHWH with body parts — feet on the ground, hands, etc. — in concrete ANE terms, not abstract spirit. Later theology spiritualised him. The text shows otherwise.

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea, Jesus came down to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 3:1) This abrupt opening of the First New Testament’s Gospel emphasises the sudden intrusion of the Stranger from the Good Father into YHWH’s world—no preparatory prophecies or genealogies, just direct revelation in power.

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): “I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil” (Isaiah 45:7). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). The Elohim of Israel authors evil and death; the alien Good God sends His Son for life and mercy alone. Judge the fruit.

One of the biggest differences between the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Father Jesus reveals is this: In the Old Testament, YHWH makes almost no promises about an afterlife. There’s no clear teaching of heaven or hell for the average person. The blessings and curses are almost entirely earthly — land, wealth, long life, or destruction in this world. Jesus, on the other hand, barely talks about earthly wealth or political power. Instead, He constantly speaks about His Father’s Kingdom and eternal life. The focus of His message is life beyond death — relationship with the Father that continues after this life ends. It’s a striking shift in emphasis. One is heavily focused on this world. The other is focused on the world to come.

Irenaeus (c. 180 CE) was the first to claim there must be exactly four Gospels — and he “proved” it by linking them to the four living creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation (lion, ox, man, eagle). The connections were absurdly forced. He argued this imagery meant there could be no more and no less than four Gospels. It was a weak, ad hoc argument made to counter Marcion (who used only one Gospel) and other early Christian groups. This wasn’t ancient consensus — it was later propaganda that helped cement the four-Gospel canon as “obvious” and divinely ordained.

In John 8:55, Iēsous tells his opponents: “You have not known [ἐγνώκατε/ginōskō — come to know experientially] him. But I know [οἶδα/oida — full, certain awareness] him.” This is the climax of a debate over paternity (Jn 8:38–44). They claim God as Father. Iēsous replies: You’ve never known my Father — your god (whom I called “the devil, a liar from the beginning”) isn’t mine. The Greek verbs drive home the incompatibility.

“Marcion thus sees Christians and Jews as fundamentally antithetical, with the results that Jews follow their own tradition, while Christians look to the New Testament with its wholly different ethical framework.” — Resetting the Origins of Christianity (Dr Markus Vinzent)

“O wonder beyond wonders! It is rapture, power, and amazement that one can say nothing at all about the Gospel, or even conceive of it, or compare it with anything!”

Jesus taught something radically different from the “eye for an eye” principle found in the Hebrew Scriptures (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21). “Turn the other cheek… love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” (Luke 6:27–29) In the cultural context of the time, “eye for an eye” was the accepted standard for justice and retaliation. A backhanded slap to the right cheek was often an insult or act of domination rather than a life-threatening attack. Jesus directly challenged that mindset of revenge and personal vengeance. His teaching focused on refusing retaliation, not necessarily banning all forms of self-defence. Early Christians, including Marcionites, took these commands seriously. Many refused military service and rejected violent retaliation altogether. Marcionite communities were known for their strong stance against returning harm for harm. This stands in clear contrast to the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, who repeatedly commanded retributive violence and the total destruction of enemies. Importantly, Jesus’ words were aimed at stopping cycles of retaliation — not at forbidding someone from protecting themselves or their family when under attack.

David Trobisch argues that the New Testament as we know it today was deliberately shaped with an anti-Marcionite agenda. The four Gospels, the Book of Acts, the full collection of Paul’s letters (including Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles), the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation all reflect a redactional concept designed to counter Marcion’s earlier canon. In other words, the New Testament wasn’t assembled neutrally. It was edited and finalised, at least in part, as a response to Marcion.